Action needs to heat up on cold calls

I absolutely disagree!! No one finds telemarketing useful. It is far too dangerous, unpredictable etc etc.

‘Which’ is supposed to be ‘pro consumer’,

Hi Vanessa. I accept that some people want telemarketing calls, but they should have the opportunity to opt-in to receive them. If you ask Which? members or the general public it will be very obvious that most people don’t want them. There is one Conversation where 100% of respondents were opposed to nuisance calls.

I did not appreciate the extent of the problem until I retired and was at home most of the time.

Vanessa, would you give some examples of unsolicited telemarketing calls that you think people would find useful? am not normally against total bans – sometimes a blunt instrument is too crude. But I would like to hear the argument for them.

The “withheld” phone number seems to indicate a company that does not want to be identified and reported. I’m not sure why anyone would legitimately want a number withheld. However this would no doubt affect wothholding numbers on personal calls as well as business calls. Should any numbers be withheld, and why? I’m sure there are good reasons, though I’ve never withheld mine and have not suffered any problems – certainly not of any magnitude.

The problem then is cold calls from overseas – no doubt the offenders would simply route their calls that way. So the problem would persist.

I am intrigued as to who finds telemarketing “useful”. Such people would surely therefore have no objection to having to opt-in to receiving such calls. They would then not be cold calls but warm ones. The point is, and there is more evidence in support of this than for Which?’s contention, we don’t want any calls that are not of our choosing and we don’t want to have to pay for (unreliable) technology to enjoy privacy in our own homes. It’s as simple as that and I am disappointed that Which? is trying to compromise the issue.

I cannot think of a single occasion out of the hundreds of nuisance calls I have received when I found a telemarketing call useful.

If all cold calling was made illegal, UK companies should also be unable to take advantage of data obtained from foreign call centres so the problem should go away on its own.

In any case, it seems foreign call centres are being replaced by recorded messages from withheld numbers as scammers find a new way to flout the rules.

I sometimes get nuisance calls from companies that I have used in the past, for example insurance companies that have significantly raised my premium. I tell them that I will never use them again if I get another call. I tell them to remove my number because I’m no longer a customer. It works.

With companies that I currently use, they get two warnings that I will not accept marketing calls. That works too.

I have never bought any product or service as a result of an unsolicited phone call and anyone who pesters me can be sure that they will not get my business.

Insurance companies are nuisance callers in my book. I don’t get many of these calls but they are told “Please put it in the post, Bye” and I don’t give them my address. If I wanted to speak to one of these companies I would call them, I don’t want them calling me.

Too many people believing their callers are genuine, are being conned to part with their money by the unscrupulous. There is no way of knowing who is genuine and who is not.

Being called on behalf of my mobile phone company is a good example of unscrupulous behaviour as they seem to know my personal details and keep trying to get me to sign up to a shiny new bottom of the range phone with a new contract that is not with my current provider. But they make it sound like they really are my current provider and it was only by questioning them that I discovered the truth. They have been pestering me for a couple of years now, and I keep telling them I don’t buy anything over the phone from cold callers, but they still keep trying so are definitely a nuisance caller and sadly many people would have fallen for their tricks.

I am looking forward with immense interest to the revealing of who makes this group ” some people find telemarketing useful”. this is going to be a doozy.

On amore serious note I am astonished that Which? seems to have been seduced into an accomplice role in the continuation of direct marketing. I doubt that a single subscriber to Which? who has signed for action on the problem is at all interested in reform. Every posting I have seen and everyone I have ever spoken to wants it banned.

So how come Which? gets involved in:
” The Nuisance Calls and Texts Task Force on Consent and Lead Generation was convened by Which? at the request of the Department of Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS), following the publication of the DCMS Nuisance Calls Action Plan in March 2014.
…………………….. The Task Force has focused its attention on how organisations use consumer
consent to carry out direct marketing activity and to buy and sell potential
customer leads. We strongly believe that consumers should not be confused
or misled by requests for their consent, and businesses should make sure that
they only purchase personal data which has been legitimately obtained.

Our recommendations are designed to help reduce the incidence of unwanted
calls and texts received by consumers by improving the ways in which marketing
organisations, regulators and government treat consumer consent to receive
direct marketing by telephone and text. ”

Which? seems to have not aligned itself with the general public in this matter and perhaps it could explain why. The revelation that charities are also involved in trading data for direct marketing makes it doubly painful.

There’s always a risk when pressure groups [like Which?] cosy up to government. They can get swept into the flow because the alternative is to be ignored completely. They end up reciting the same mantras and using the same smoothed-out language so that their cutting edge gets severely blunted. Unfortunately in the conventional orthodoxy that is our form of representative democracy it is the only way to make any progress at all. I am not happy about it but those of us who care about these things just have to keep trying, as you so often do Diesel, to stiffen the resolve of the organisations of which we are nominally members or at least paid-up supporters.

I am also looking forward with great interest who these people are who find telemarketing useful.

Let’s face it, the whole point of telemarketing is to get you to part with your hard earned cash and succumbing to pressure sales or making quick decisions that cost you money is rarely going to be in your favour.

I think we should also be asking “Where Is The Proof?”

Vanessa, you are forgetting about the suicide of Olive Cooke a few weeks ago. She received so many nuisance calls, she felt the only to end it was to kill herself.

Jessica Marilyn’s story of nuisance mail is at thinkjessica.com. If she had received nuisance calls instead of mail, she would have been financially worse off than Olive. The mail contributed to her poor health, illness and death.

Your Bill won’t help people like them.

Vanessa, I don’t think I’d class a call from an existing provider, such as your mobile phone supplier, as an unsolicited marketing call. But I wouldn’t want them to pass my details on to anyone else – even some other company within their organisation.

What I’d object to, and support banning, are all calls from people I don’t know and have never dealt with. I hope Which? will pursue a total ban on these and press for an opt-in as the default.

Have you thoughts on how overseas marketing calls might be dealt with, and what views are there on stopping all numbers being withheld? I’d be interested to know under what circumstances they are justified, including of course private calls. I’m sure there will be valid reasons (but don’t see why doctors or hospital as quoted above should withhold numbers, for example).

Since the facility for making cold calls is the use of computer-driven automated calling systems there must be a way in which it could be a legal requirement to have a licence from Ofcom to operate such a system and for manufacturers/suppliers of such systems to have to verify that such a licence exists before installing the system. This could be Europe-wide if there was cooperation within the EU. I realise it would not tackle incoming calls from abroad but there might be another way of cutting off their income stream through the banks and credit card companies.

I think Malcolm has made a very pertinent point. A call from a company with whom one is in a contractual relationship is not in the same league as the objectionable, deceitful, exploitative and repetitive calls we all want banned. It might be a cold call in the sense that it is unsolicited and interruptive, so therefore a nuisance, but it is not an invasive call and there are ways of getting out of such contractual relationships [and firms that want our custom won’t do it again after being reprimanded]. In any case such calls are invariably person-to-person and they treat one respectfully as an existing customer in my experience.

I think the only calls I have had from my mobile phone company is when I have had a problem (not a nuisance) or a previous company trying to get me back (definitely a nuisance). They have certainly never suggested a cheaper tariff presumably as it is not in their interest to do so.

But I do agree calls from a company you are in a contract with and as long as calls are concerning that contract should not be classed as nuisance calls.

Vanessa, why does Which? think it is ok for companies to sell your personal information in the first place? Why don’t data protection and privacy laws prevent them from doing this?

alfa – I asked the same question on one of the on-line charity industry sites I frequent. Either Third Sector or Civil Society.

Someone in the fund raising sector was saying how scupulous she was in buying lists that the people had agreed for their information to be passed on. It is rather touching that people who obtain the lists are assumed to be totally honest despite being paid poorly or purely on the results they provide.

“We don’t think outright ban is the right solution to the problem of nuisance calls and texts because some people find telemarketing useful, and not all telemarketing calls are a nuisance or unwanted.”
Vaness Furey

Who are the some?

dieseltaylor, I think we are all waiting with bated breath for who the some are.

We go to great lengths and are encouraged to do so by various organisations, to protect ourselves, our identities, our finances, our property, etc. We use a multitude of different format passwords, internet security, jump through hoops to get at your online accounts, don’t put your name and address out with the rubbish, etc. We try to educate our elderly relatives to do the same.

So I find it quite ludicrous that companies can just sell your personal information and companies such as charities have no qualms in justifying their use of it. And I also don’t understand how Which? can support the selling of our data either.

Vanessa, you said “We don’t think outright ban is the right solution to the problem of nuisance calls and texts because some people find telemarketing useful, and not all telemarketing calls are a nuisance or unwanted”.

No they don’t and yes they are.

The percentage of people who find telemarketing useful is miniscule and telemarketing calls are found by the vast majority of consumers very much an unwanted nuisance.
If you honestly believe what you’ve written you either don’t have your finger on the pulse or you’ve been got at.

For that tiny percentage that welcomes telesales calls let them “opt in”, but make the default “opt out” then all those people you talk of who like these calls will be happy, and the rest of us, the vast majority of us, who don’t will be happy too.

Despite being registered with TPS I got six today, two of them silent. 5 or 6 is about the weekday average, but the record is 10. I’ve very much had enough of it as is clear to those calling me by the language I’ve been reduced to using.
And you say ” A ban would adversely affect those companies that act legally and responsibly when they contact consumers”?
A comment that won’t get much sympathy from me. Perhaps you might define just what is legal and responsible, and advise how these callers establish just what is a “responsible” cold call?

Finally an example of one of the most annoying.
I kept getting calls on my mobile from a casino type outfit, lots of them texts too. I actually read through one of the texts and found I could be removed from their “pester list” by texting a number and just saying “NO”. I did this only to later find out that text cost me 30p. It was classed as outside my monthly text allowance.
And worse of all the texts didn’t stop. I’m still livid about it.

How can anyone defend any cold caller?

Vanessa, perhaps we could have a poll:

How do you consent to you personal data being sold:

1. Without your permission
2. With your permission
3. Never

Vanessa, your words earlier are almost disgraceful.

No responsible business would put its own customers on a call centre list, let alone strangers. And they wouldn’t buy a phone number list and call a phone number knowing those numbers had been obtained with vague wording to fool people. If they want to give a better deal, they’re capable of doing it for everyone without ringing them. And if people want to move to a better deal, they’ll find out for themselves when they’re ready.

Fines are a cost of doing business. They’re passed on to consumers.

If you fine company directors, they’ll increase their salary and pass the cost to consumers, who are probably getting a bad deal anyway.

Your bill isn’t going to change anything.

Wavechange, Which has already got publicity for its campaign on television. It was covered very well this morning on BBC Breakfast for example.

Can we have a link to the actual report Richard. I read it when it was published and wanted to refresh my memory as to the composition of the committee you chaired.

I know the Fair Telecoms group thought the recommendations did not go far enough.:

“We propose a complete ban on cold calling in the following areas:

Claims Management – PPI, Personal Injury and Accidents, Medical Negligence etc.
Energy – Provision, “Switching” and the “Green Deal”, which covers home improvements.
Financial Services – Debt Management, Payday loans, Pensions etc.”

I have to say that seems to jibe more with the populations wishes.

Thanks very much NFH. It’s a pity it’s not available on iPlayer.

Incidentally, I agree that speaking to cold callers can help to avoid future calls, and I simply tell them that I have never bought from any company that uses cold calls or doorstop sales. That obviously does not help with the recorded messages, which seem to be taking the place of callers.

Thanks for posting the video, Vanessa. It highlights the fact that nuisance calls is a more serious issue than causing irritation to people like me. It’s the less fortunate that we need to think of.

A call blocker is no help if you want to receive calls from some withheld numbers. Doctors and hospitals are examples of users of these numbers. You might also miss a call about something you have ordered.

Having experimented with different approaches, my view is that it does help to engage with callers, usually saying that I never buy from unsolicited callers.

Blockers based on trueCall technology do not suffer that problem. Callers are challenged to state their name or hang up. This allows legitimate callers but who have withheld their number to still get through.

Some people are not very happy with these devices.

I suggest that we tackle the problem rather than trying to find ways of making it more bearable.

Nobody should have to resort to registering with TPS or purchasing a call blocker.

It is completely immoral that BT sells these things and profits from people’s misery when they have the power and technology to tackle the problem of nuisance callers. It is also disgusting that they charge for caller display.

An effective fix does not lie in the application of technology. It is clearly inappropriate to use the telephone for some types of marketing and those business sectors should be completely banned from doing so.

The call blocker I use makes people say their name regardless of whether their number is withheld or not. So it’s only automated diallers that are totally stuffed as they cant connect the call.

It’s interesting how in the weasel wording of the establishment, our personal identities and private information have become “potential customer leads”. It makes it sound so innocent doesn’t it?

Unfortunately, opting in would be wide open to abuse.

Companies would apologise that your number is on their list of permitable calls and carry on regardless.

Tellling them you are ex-directory or registered with TPS makes no difference and neither would opting-in.

I reported in a related Conversation about a recent charity cold-call. I think these are even more insidious than straight commercial ones because they are playing on people’s sympathies and their suggestibility; people don’t like to appear uncharitable. Elderly people are more likely to be vulnerable to such approaches and succumb more easily to the persuasive voice at the end of the phone line, especially if they don’t have much human contact for lengthy periods. One should’t generalise, though: many older people are quite capable of giving the caller more than they bargained for.

Only a total ban will do with positive opt-in required to enable access. Negative opt-in, deemed or implied consent, and default consent [i.e. uncheck a contrary box, failure to read the T&C’s, providing a telephone number in the address panel, and such like] should all be outlawed.

Which ? Poll on Conversations

Are you fed up with nuisance calls and texts?

Yes (100%, 30,130 Votes)

No (0%, 91 Votes)

Total Voters: 30,221

Looking back over the Which? tag “cold callers”, it looks like 5 years ago the nuisance callers were on your doorstep, then when the mockers were put on that, they resorted to foreign call centres, now they are moving on to recorded messages.

I wonder what will be next !!!

And I am very happy to do the calling when I want something like insurance or even a PPI refund if I was entitled to one. I definitely don’t want to be pestered by them.

@which, is there something wrong with your system It’s taken 4 days for alfa’s message to arrive in my inbox, this has been going on since you had a system issue months ago. Are you aware of the problem and what’s being done to resolve it?

FYI The mails are leaving which ok, but getting held up at google.

“neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of webadmin”

Looks like an IP address has changed but not been update at googlemail and is causing the mails a 3 day delay while their processed.

Emails with client-ip=5.79.44.152; in worked on,
With client-ip=54.171.79.54; have a problem at google.

hope that helps.

william, I have had no email updates at all since the server was changed even though I check the box..

Hi Patrick, You do realise its been broken for months now ? And was the info I posted at all relevant to the problem ? And FYI I’ve not had notification of your response, I was just curious to see if there had been one.

@hectare, I have friends in Canada and the States and they both get the Microsoft scam calls. I don’t know for sure but I guess the reason they tend to dry up is cos they’ve moved on to another part of the world, and it seems to take roughly 3-4 months to get back to calling me again.

Their money comes from selling on your number as having someone on the end of the phone that others can then pester.

Yet again the questions that I and others have asked remain unanswered.

No-one should ever have to worry whether they have given permission or not for their personal data to be sold, or for how long, or to who.

Third Sector does open your eyes when it comes to charities.

I used to naively think charities were organisations run by volunteers to help those in need when in reality they are big businesses. I don’t think I even realised Which? was a charity for a long time.

Some time ago, I looked up the website on our local clothes recycling bank, watched the video of the journey of those clothes and was frankly appalled that three levels of people were making money from them before being sold to the less fortunate on African market stalls.

I think you are right at Which? being at a cross-roads. It should be representing its subscribers but evidence right here on this convo suggests otherwise. It would also be a good idea to survey the entire membership of Which? as you suggested. My earlier poll suggestion on consenting to selling personal data fell on deaf ears and that could also be asked.